John, Good response.
I am still interested in finding a way of spacing the release candidates out. What would you think of if 2.0.10 was voted as beta, and then 2.0.11 would take the place of RC1-RC10 build list. Once the 2.0.11 regression issues come in and are fixed, then you would have a nice GA product. This is, in a way, similar to the odd-even release versioning scheme. Paul On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:51 PM, John Casey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have different experiences from past releases of the Maven project. If an > issue comes up during a release vote, for instance, that brings up a very > valid point of whether it's really kosher to fix it and continue the vote. > Most people would say - and this is the general agreement in Maven, I think > - that you're voting on a binary. This is why we've moved toward staging, > then promoting, a proposed releasable binary. > > Obviously, it's not great to have 10 release candidates before a release. I > don't doubt that there's been significant burnout among the development > community WRT testing each successive RC in what is starting to seem like an > endless stream. However, it's been our experience in the past that alpha > releases don't get much attention, and beta releases take too much of the > pressure off to getting a final release out the door. > > This is the second release that we've attempted the release candidate > approach, and what I've noticed is that when you get beyond the first three > or four issues discovered for that RC - not great, I know - the testing > effort drops off significantly. I'm forced to conclude it's the level of > effort, since there are issues cropping up that have been in several release > candidates now. I know, it's definitely possible that people have a hard > time keeping up with the velocity of these RCs. But in a way, that's a good > thing, because when they do have time to try it out, they're working with > the latest and greatest that we have to offer...so as not to trip up on > different permutations of the same bug. > > I think there are definite downsides to all of these approaches, but I've > found the level of engagement with these last two releases to be > unprecedented since the 2.0 release. > > -john > > Paul Benedict wrote: >> >> I would like to mention that Niall Pemberton, owner of Common >> Beanutils, had a very good experience doing the latest builds using >> RC. Each time he published an RC, he waited about 4-6 weeks to collect >> feedback, patched those bugs, and released the next RC. >> >> Are shotgun release candidates too hurtful with the growing number of >> iterations? Do we need a new RC per 2-3 issues, or should they be >> "released" as "beta" and then revoted on for GA quality a couple weeks >> -- or even one week -- later based on community feedback. >> >> I am thinking that if Maven moved to voting their RC builds as true >> releases (yes, publishing to central repo), the iterative development >> would be accepted better, and the public would be more involved. I >> recommend turning each RC into a point release. >> >> Paul >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > -- > John Casey > Developer, PMC Member - Apache Maven (http://maven.apache.org) > Blog: http://www.ejlife.net/blogs/buildchimp/ > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
